House Member
Posts: 3,382 
September 1st, 2007, 10:44 AM
But not retaliating, your poster has only increased the death toll.
Now all of his people are dead. Then the aggressor is still in perfect condition, and he can continue attacking nation after nation (killing each one, resulting in far more dead) until it either has world control or someone else fights back, resulting in the aggressor nation being destroyed ANYWAYS and piling up the heaping of extra dead on your hands.
Sometimes not fighting back is a cowardly thing to do, which gets more people killed.
Quoting Logic 7 
One of the smartest post i ever read in here , congrats.
Sorry Logic, its actually rather Naive and assumes a faulty and utopian view, which is know in the situation is false to begin with as your opponent is launching a nuclear strike. One of the smartest post i ever read in here , congrats.
But not retaliating, your poster has only increased the death toll.
Now all of his people are dead. Then the aggressor is still in perfect condition, and he can continue attacking nation after nation (killing each one, resulting in far more dead) until it either has world control or someone else fights back, resulting in the aggressor nation being destroyed ANYWAYS and piling up the heaping of extra dead on your hands.
Sometimes not fighting back is a cowardly thing to do, which gets more people killed.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 526
Location: Pointy Rocks
Location: Pointy Rocks
December 3rd, 2007, 04:04 PM
Quoting Anachronism
Several problems with this post. The most obvious being that the only time a nuclear device has been used in war was against Japan. The result was the end of the war. And Japan is not a nuclear wasteland. The US did occupy Japan. Japan is an excellent beautiful country today.
In a case where a nuclear strike is poised to eliminate the entire country (as it normally would, seeing as how there are thousands of nukes in existence within a single country), sovereignty would mean nothing because the sovereign nation wouldn't exist anymore in a few minutes. Occupation is more favorable than annihilation.
Then there's the fact that nuclear fallout would likely contaminate the majority of a given continent even if there were only a few missiles, and cause more deaths than the initial blast would. So why would anyone want to occupy a nuclear wasteland? No crops would grow there, precautions would have to be taken every time you set foot outside (and that's only after the years of the fallout being in the air), and the water would still be radioactive. It's entirely inhospitable. The only purpose for nuclear warfare is death, not colonization. So sovereignty means nothing in the case of impending nuclear strike, and thus the best course of action is to cause the least death possible, by not engaging in nuclear combat no matter the conditions.
If a nation really were to try to blow EVERYONE up with nuclear missiles, then I could see the point in retaliating. But a nation that really would do that is unlikely to ever exist. Plus, they'd only end up killing themselves as a result of the fallout. They would know this if their nuclear physicists were skilled enough to enrich uranium.
Then there's the fact that nuclear fallout would likely contaminate the majority of a given continent even if there were only a few missiles, and cause more deaths than the initial blast would. So why would anyone want to occupy a nuclear wasteland? No crops would grow there, precautions would have to be taken every time you set foot outside (and that's only after the years of the fallout being in the air), and the water would still be radioactive. It's entirely inhospitable. The only purpose for nuclear warfare is death, not colonization. So sovereignty means nothing in the case of impending nuclear strike, and thus the best course of action is to cause the least death possible, by not engaging in nuclear combat no matter the conditions.
If a nation really were to try to blow EVERYONE up with nuclear missiles, then I could see the point in retaliating. But a nation that really would do that is unlikely to ever exist. Plus, they'd only end up killing themselves as a result of the fallout. They would know this if their nuclear physicists were skilled enough to enrich uranium.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
December 3rd, 2007, 06:34 PM
Quoting iARTthere4iam
The war was for all intents and purposes over when the bombs were dropped. Several million American service personelle have served in post war Japan and Okinawa. Japan holds almost a trillian in US dollars, that's trouble.
Several problems with this post. The most obvious being that the only time a nuclear device has been used in war was against Japan. The result was the end of the war. And Japan is not a nuclear wasteland. The US did occupy Japan. Japan is an excellent beautiful country today.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
December 3rd, 2007, 06:36 PM
Quoting iARTthere4iam
The war was for all intents and purposes over when the bombs were dropped. Several million American personell have served in post war Japan and Okinawa. Japan holds almost a trillian in US dollars, that's trouble. The result of the bombs use was to frighten the **** out of the rest of the world especially the commonists. It was a successful test of people cookers.
Several problems with this post. The most obvious being that the only time a nuclear device has been used in war was against Japan. The result was the end of the war. And Japan is not a nuclear wasteland. The US did occupy Japan. Japan is an excellent beautiful country today.
Not so newbie now
Posts: 183
Location: 950 Snowupthearse Rd. Canadian Shield Ontario
Location: 950 Snowupthearse Rd. Canadian Shield Ontario
December 3rd, 2007, 06:47 PM
YES. Those bombs were dropped after the war was over.
There had been four cities chosen as possible targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata (Kyoto was the first choice until it was removed from the list by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson). The cities were chosen because they had been relatively untouched during the war. The Target Committee wanted the first bomb to be "sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released."3
Source: http://history1900s.about.com/od/wor.../hiroshima.htm
YES. Those bombs were dropped after the war was over.
There had been four cities chosen as possible targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata (Kyoto was the first choice until it was removed from the list by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson). The cities were chosen because they had been relatively untouched during the war. The Target Committee wanted the first bomb to be "sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released."3
Source: http://history1900s.about.com/od/wor.../hiroshima.htm
Bright Spark
Posts: 476
Location: Zurich
Location: Zurich
December 3rd, 2007, 07:32 PM
I believe in peace and love and non-violence.
After our wars in Africa, all lost, especially Rwanda, we might be tempted to meet machete with machete, but Darfur proves how much can be done with video cameras.
If our armed forces should be allowed enhanced capability, the next thing we know we'll have the blood of the Mujadeen on our hands as well as the Taliban. Why can't we all just be friends?
I believe in peace and love and non-violence.
After our wars in Africa, all lost, especially Rwanda, we might be tempted to meet machete with machete, but Darfur proves how much can be done with video cameras.
If our armed forces should be allowed enhanced capability, the next thing we know we'll have the blood of the Mujadeen on our hands as well as the Taliban. Why can't we all just be friends?
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 10,273
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 3
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
December 3rd, 2007, 07:47 PM
Quoting jimshort19
I'v asked myself that question a lot. But I'm to stupid to know. So I asked some others and they seem to think being friendly dosn't make money. I think our armed forces will be used against us someday soon, so I'd like to see them disarmed untill they figure out who's writing thier checks.
I believe in peace and love and non-violence.
After our wars in Africa, all lost, especially Rwanda, we might be tempted to meet machete with machete, but Darfur proves how much can be done with video cameras.
If our armed forces should be allowed enhanced capability, the next thing we know we'll have the blood of the Mujadeen on our hands as well as the Taliban. Why can't we all just be friends?
After our wars in Africa, all lost, especially Rwanda, we might be tempted to meet machete with machete, but Darfur proves how much can be done with video cameras.
If our armed forces should be allowed enhanced capability, the next thing we know we'll have the blood of the Mujadeen on our hands as well as the Taliban. Why can't we all just be friends?
Clever Clogs
Posts: 526
Location: Pointy Rocks
Location: Pointy Rocks
December 3rd, 2007, 08:32 PM
Quoting jimshort19
A difficult question to be sure. The most basic reason why we all don't get along is probably that we have different objectives that are often mutually exclusive. If you get what you want and my rights are violated I may have to push back and reasset my rights. If I have a disagreement with my neighbour hopefully we can work it out. Among nations the situations are far more complex and difficult to work out. Sometimes a bully just wants your lunch money and he needs a punch in the nose to see that he cannot have it without a fight ( see Gulf War I and Saddam's grab for Kuwait).
I believe in peace and love and non-violence.
After our wars in Africa, all lost, especially Rwanda, we might be tempted to meet machete with machete, but Darfur proves how much can be done with video cameras.
If our armed forces should be allowed enhanced capability, the next thing we know we'll have the blood of the Mujadeen on our hands as well as the Taliban. Why can't we all just be friends?
After our wars in Africa, all lost, especially Rwanda, we might be tempted to meet machete with machete, but Darfur proves how much can be done with video cameras.
If our armed forces should be allowed enhanced capability, the next thing we know we'll have the blood of the Mujadeen on our hands as well as the Taliban. Why can't we all just be friends?
Clever Clogs
Posts: 526
Location: Pointy Rocks
Location: Pointy Rocks
December 3rd, 2007, 08:39 PM
If you are talking about an alternate military structure such as restricting the military to prevent foreign adventurism and imperialism, then you should say what it is any military in Canada would do and how it would be structured (perhaps a small standing army and reservists trained to fight and defend Canada in the worst case situation). If you are talking about being defenseless then you are just being silly. Would we get rid of police and fire departments?
Quoting darkbeaver
You are talking about our armed forces? Then we are writing the checks.
I'v asked myself that question a lot. But I'm to stupid to know. So I asked some others and they seem to think being friendly dosn't make money. I think our armed forces will be used against us someday soon, so I'd like to see them disarmed untill they figure out who's writing thier checks.
If you are talking about an alternate military structure such as restricting the military to prevent foreign adventurism and imperialism, then you should say what it is any military in Canada would do and how it would be structured (perhaps a small standing army and reservists trained to fight and defend Canada in the worst case situation). If you are talking about being defenseless then you are just being silly. Would we get rid of police and fire departments?
Clever Clogs
Posts: 526
Location: Pointy Rocks
Location: Pointy Rocks
December 3rd, 2007, 08:46 PM
Quoting hermite
The war with Japan was not over. Unconditional surrender came after the bomb. Would the war have ended eventually? Yes. But it wasn't over yet.
YES. Those bombs were dropped after the war was over.
There had been four cities chosen as possible targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata (Kyoto was the first choice until it was removed from the list by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson). The cities were chosen because they had been relatively untouched during the war. The Target Committee wanted the first bomb to be "sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released."3
Source: http://history1900s.about.com/od/wor.../hiroshima.htm
There had been four cities chosen as possible targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata (Kyoto was the first choice until it was removed from the list by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson). The cities were chosen because they had been relatively untouched during the war. The Target Committee wanted the first bomb to be "sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it was released."3
Source: http://history1900s.about.com/od/wor.../hiroshima.htm
Clever Clogs
Posts: 526
Location: Pointy Rocks
Location: Pointy Rocks
December 3rd, 2007, 08:51 PM
Quoting darkbeaver
Actually "friendly" makes bucket-loads of money. War is expensive and not productive. Our relationship with the US makes loads of money as does our relationship with countries all over the world. How would going to war make money? You keep stating that we go to war for profit. Please explain.
I'v asked myself that question a lot. But I'm to stupid to know. So I asked some others and they seem to think being friendly dosn't make money. I think our armed forces will be used against us someday soon, so I'd like to see them disarmed untill they figure out who's writing thier checks.
Council Member
Posts: 2,301
December 4th, 2007, 12:21 AM
Can anyone tell me WHY we are fighting and killing Talibans in Afghanistan?
Quoting Niflmir
We are also BORROWING tanks from Germany, so we can fight for Mr. Bush in Afghanistan!!!
No need to worry about Canada retaliating with nuclear warheads - we don't have any! Which is ironic, seeing as how we are the world's leading supplier of uranium. We supply our uranium through the IAEA which ensures that none of our uranium is used for warheads. We are one of the few countries that respects the non proliferation agreement.
As for the whole military-industrial complex... don't we buy all our weapons second hand? When was the last time Canadians were innovating in the arms field? The sea-king perhaps?
As for the whole military-industrial complex... don't we buy all our weapons second hand? When was the last time Canadians were innovating in the arms field? The sea-king perhaps?
Can anyone tell me WHY we are fighting and killing Talibans in Afghanistan?
Les
Posts: 6,139
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
December 4th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Quoting jimshort19
I believe killing is wasteful and stupid, too. We can't all be friends for several reasons, basically a few of the "7 deadly sins"; greed, lust, vanity, anger, and envy. They are the motives behind just about everything most people do.
I believe in peace and love and non-violence.
After our wars in Africa, all lost, especially Rwanda, we might be tempted to meet machete with machete, but Darfur proves how much can be done with video cameras.
If our armed forces should be allowed enhanced capability, the next thing we know we'll have the blood of the Mujadeen on our hands as well as the Taliban. Why can't we all just be friends?
After our wars in Africa, all lost, especially Rwanda, we might be tempted to meet machete with machete, but Darfur proves how much can be done with video cameras.
If our armed forces should be allowed enhanced capability, the next thing we know we'll have the blood of the Mujadeen on our hands as well as the Taliban. Why can't we all just be friends?
House Member
Posts: 3,382
December 4th, 2007, 05:55 AM
Another one is not everyone has the same moral and cultural norms as you do (including what is and is not sins).
While your morals may find war and killing wrong, not everyone does. There have been many warrior cultures (and still are) in the world today who see war and death as a natural part of humanity and actually encourage it.
So concepts of "lets all get along" doesn't work with people who see that in the same light you would see warfare.
Another one is not everyone has the same moral and cultural norms as you do (including what is and is not sins).
While your morals may find war and killing wrong, not everyone does. There have been many warrior cultures (and still are) in the world today who see war and death as a natural part of humanity and actually encourage it.
So concepts of "lets all get along" doesn't work with people who see that in the same light you would see warfare.
Bright Spark
Posts: 476
Location: Zurich
Location: Zurich
December 4th, 2007, 07:25 AM
I am pleased to feel understood here.
The reason why Osama Bin Laden is not my friend is all my fault I'm afraid. I'd like to sit down and chat with the suicide bombers. I'm sure that they are nice people when you get to know them. I recall how I loved the USSR when they had our cities targeted for destruction, and how I hated the imperialist Americans, though they would not kill me. Patty Hearst opened my eyes to how to get along, how to survive. Now Canada is becoming imperialistic - again. Did we learn nothing from Hitler?
It is sometimes better to surrender or change sides, especially when you are a spineless coward and a fool, tutored by teachers with Stockholm syndrome, afraid to fight, loving only your own worthless skin, and prepared to consign humanity to the flames.
I am pleased to feel understood here.
The reason why Osama Bin Laden is not my friend is all my fault I'm afraid. I'd like to sit down and chat with the suicide bombers. I'm sure that they are nice people when you get to know them. I recall how I loved the USSR when they had our cities targeted for destruction, and how I hated the imperialist Americans, though they would not kill me. Patty Hearst opened my eyes to how to get along, how to survive. Now Canada is becoming imperialistic - again. Did we learn nothing from Hitler?
It is sometimes better to surrender or change sides, especially when you are a spineless coward and a fool, tutored by teachers with Stockholm syndrome, afraid to fight, loving only your own worthless skin, and prepared to consign humanity to the flames.
